Posted
by
Soulskill
on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @10:45AM
from the unless-you've-always-wanted-to-move-to-russia dept.

An anonymous reader writes: In the wake of NSA leaks debacle, New Zealand's Inspector General of Security and Intelligence has developed a process to enable whistleblowers to act safely. "The Edward Snowden disclosures demonstrate how critical it is to have a clear path, with appropriate protections, for disclosing information about suspected wrongdoing (PDF) within an intelligence and security agency," Cheryl Gwyn says. The Inspector General's powers were boosted after it was discovered New Zealand's Government Communications Security Bureau had been spying illegally on Kim Dotcom and others. "Edward Snowden has consistently said it was impossible for him to make internal disclosures about what he believed was wrongdoing due to the lack of whistleblower protections he faced in the U.S."

What really needs to happen is that people responsible for illegal activity, including spying, need to go to fucking prison, just like any one of the great unwashed goes to prison for breaking laws. These people break these laws, which then requires some whistleblowing because they know they can do it with impunity.

So ignoring the law and becoming a criminal organization is fine as long as there is some abstract goal behind it? You would the also be perfectly fine with what the KGB, the Stasi and the GeStaPo were doing?

Judging by their post, and the replies of a few others, why yes, yes they *would* be okay with the Stasi, KGB, etc... So long as they believed it was for their own good. Remember, some of the best agents those people had were civilians, after all.

I watched a documentary (several in a row so I'm not sure which but I think it was titled Gestapo) where a lady ended up in prison for political reasons. After the fall of the Wall and the ensuing disclosures, she learned that it was her husband who had done all th

If fall-of-the-wall was in there, then it was the Stasi (hard to keep track of all that fascist scum, I know).

One important factor of fascism is to make sure the population is mostly in their side. As people are stupid and external enemies can be easily created (just look at the US today, or northern Korea, same principle), this is pretty easy.

That's like saying the only way I can catch a burglar is to break into his house and find my stuff. Nope. If I catch him in the act, that's good enough. And it's perfectly OK for me to watch my own house to catch him.

If you are saying it's perfectly OK to watch your own house to catch him, are you suggesting the U.S. government should conduct ridiculously illegal massive surveillance on the lives of every single one of its clearance-holding employees? You realize that employees of the government are allowed to live free lives without surveillance of their day-to-day lives... right?

Actually, no, they aren't...

If you have someone who is cleared to have knowledge of some very secret stuff, then he/she has to accept that their life and behavior will be watched.

Does this mean we care if they cheat on their spouse? Yes it does, because that is a possible point of blackmail.

Does this mean we care if they suddenly drive an expensive car and buy a boat they shouldn't be able to afford? Yes it does, because that money might have come from other governments.

They will get some lawyer to right a secret opinion that what they are doing is legal then point to the secret opinion paper that they can't show you that what they are doing is legal. Oh, can't show you the paper because what we are doing is legal because what we are doing is secret but trust us we have the opinion paper.

It's an impasse of sorts in Snowden case: in order to serve justice, US needs to modify Espionage Act to allow "public interest defense". But if it is allowed then Snowden's lawyers will pull all the dirt about NSA dealing and the case will escalate to Supreme Court (Snowden has standing after all) were all this shit might be declared unconstitutional. And US government cannot afford that risk, thus no justice for you, Snowden.

And US government cannot afford that risk, thus no justice for you, Snowden.

There can't be justice, broadly, until the Espionage Act is repealed. The US managed to survive without it up until 1917, and the very worst abuses of said government are protected by it.

Of course the Espionage Act cannot be repealed without imperiling those in power and their beneficiaries. So, even though it will lead to such a untenable situation that they will eventually lose their power, rapidly, the current system has no mec

Everyone in the business would also be aware of the nasty prosecution and harassment whistleblowers receive. Thus, Snowden took a more effective strategy which allowed him to whistleblow without being dragged through the courts or having his evidence suppressed.

Yeah, because who else do we listen to about proper legal procedures than the guy in that position explaining them. But I guess you know more about proper whistleblowing procedures for the intelligence community than Eric Holder?

It doesn't matter if you have a means to report it. Nothing will -ever- happen to stop the activity. The 'system' as a whole has an invested interest in assuring that any such disclosures never lead to actual repercussions. No matter how protected it is, you will be outed as the one who complained and you will be dealt with either by being framed, arrested on some technicality and having the book thrown at you or simply find yourself unable to work in your profession again because apparently you no longer g

This is more or less, what Tom Drake said. Drake, who was a high level NSA official, started to address the agency's illegal activities by going through proper channels. When that failed, he and others within the NSA, leaked information to the NY Times while being very careful to limit the disclosures to things that were not too sensitive but still showed illegal activity. There were congressional hearings and the NSA denied everything. They got away with it because Drake's leaks did not include enough detailed evidence. At this point, they could have cut back those activities, which they had denied doing (but were, in fact, doing) because the process clearly pointed them out as illegal and unwanted by the American public. That's where Snowden came in and provided the detailed evidence. I think that no small part of his decision to flee had to do with creating a dramatic effect. His being on the run helps to keep the issue in the public spotlight. If that stops working, he may choose some opportune time to turn himself in if it can be done for further dramatic effect. So, I think there is actually some benefit for a whistleblower, like Snowden, to break the law to the point of an act of civil disobedience. Meanwhile, Tom Drake was protected as a whistleblower although he had a tough time with his legal defence for a while.

Perhaps New Zealand could offer Mr. Snowden citizenship as he has shown that he is willing to suffer for the public good. People do have the right to know and the cowardly posture of the US in dreading any potential event is silly. To be part of this world both as individuals and as nations we have to be abl;e to accept some level of risk. No nation has ever had perfect security and the US has gone way too far in that regard.

In regards to Snowden, unless you can find a congressman or senator to help and forge away ahead for you, you have nothing. Plenty of other resources for other branches of the government, even for commercial businesses.

As several news articles have pointed out, the very same man who Snowden saw lying to Congress about the extent of the spying would have been the one Snowden would ultimately be reporting to, were he to report his concerns. Sure, they might have then fired Snowden as a result - but it's also entirely possible they wouldn't. The main thing is, there was no chance whatsoever that the NSA would decide to come clean and tell the truth because a junior IT guy pointed out they were lying. They knew they were lying at much higher levels and were ok with that.

Snowden had several legal options he chose to ignore. Every employee that works around protected data is briefed on legal paths of whistle-blowing that are outside of the chain of command. Legal reporting has protection against reprisal and isn't treason. He could have presented his case to IG, FBI, Congress, Congressional Committees and Sub-Committees... There were hundreds of routes available that did not entail dumping classified data out to the public that placed lives at risk and would not be consid

With very few exceptions (see below) real espionage is NOT done publicly. Russian/Chinese/ISIS etc. spies don't break into X secret government and then publish for the world to see. It simply isn't done that way.

Why? Because such disclosure defeats the most important goal which is to not let the victims know they have been owned. If the victim knows they were owned, they fix the hole and you can't do it again. No temporary knowledge is ever worth what you can get next year and the one after that.

If you go public, then you are almost always not engaged in espionage, you are a Whistle Blower.

The few exceptions are the revelations of specific details such as plans on how to build top secret physical objects, copies of top secret computer code, or the names of undercover agents. That type of information should never be disclosed, not even publicly.

General methods, avenues of attack, etc. simply do deserve the same level of protection. The fact that we do X is never really secret, no matter what the government says.

Part of it is the reputation issue. China's main problem is that they care more about their politicians' reputation than what the politicians are doing.

America should NEVER make that mistake - what someone actually does is always far more important than their reputation - and that includes the reputation of government agencies.

appropriate protections, for disclosing information about suspected wrongdoing (PDF) within an intelligence and security agency

Disclosing "within the intelligence agency" would have been pointless; it would simply have been swept under the rug, protections or not.

The only thing Snowden could do with this information is disclose it publicly if he felt it was sufficiently important, and if he was willing to pay the personal price and hope for leniency eventually. That's what he did. Now, you may agree or disa

"In the wake of NSA leaks debacle, New Zealand's Inspector General of Security and Intelligence has developed a process to enable whistleblowers to act safely".

'New Zealand's Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Cheryl Gwyn, said a formal internal policy for handling protected disclosures, or "whistleblowing", has been developed by her office in liaison with security agencies.'

Snowden isn't a good example.. the man had taken the job with the intentend of finding classified information and bringing it out in the open (and all for his own pleasure/15 minutes of fame (which became a bit more than 15 minutes))..I think there is a difference between somebody working at a company/institution for many years and stumbeling upon that information, or entering a position and signing a NDA knowingly you're not gonna break the NDA..In reality Snowden is not a hero, but a traitor (even though

"If it was important enough he should have been willing to do the time"

Snowden has publicly stated [washingtonpost.com] that he is willing to do time.

However, had he not taken the course of action that he did then we would not know the extent of government spying and Snowden would be considered just another conspiracy kook making accusations without any hard evidence.

Snowden did the right thing and took the appropriate measures to do so. We all owe him our gratitude.

"If it was important enough he should have been willing to do the time"

Snowden has publicly stated [washingtonpost.com] that he is willing to do time.

However, had he not taken the course of action that he did then we would not know the extent of government spying and Snowden would be considered just another conspiracy kook making accusations without any hard evidence.

Snowden did the right thing and took the appropriate measures to do so. We all owe him our gratitude.

I agree he did the right thing, but for the wrong reasons. I personally think he did this because he is under the misguided opinion that the US can be fixed, he didn't know the half of it, how far back it goes or exactly what and who it involves. I unfortunately do not share his opinion. Technically information that is classified is done so by a sovereign nation, not one being run by outside interests of those that amount to be a batch of asshole closet case communist pedophiles that were responsible for

see the problem is if you dont make a responsible avenue for disclosure, this is what happens. Causes far more damage to hide all the gov't wrong doing, than to provide whitsleblower provisions. Because we do not have them, it encourages people like snowden to go to Russia and China and disclose, so it would be prudent to protect snowden and people like him against the abuses of government. Unfortunately the gov't ass is stuck so far up its ass (notice no brains just ass) that they would rather silen

Hmm, regardless of what Snowden said or supposedly exposed there... Are you somehow trying to grab a moral high ground for the US? As in, US spying and hacking attempts into Chinese systems are OK but Chinese hacking attempts into US systems is not...especially when no information to date has been brought forward to justify the US hacking attempts?

I'm not sure why this is so hard to believe. Have you been paying attention to what's going on with governments across the world for the past decade or so? It's not a rosy picture. In fact, it's downright horrific what they're doing.

After that categorical statement to the Post, the NSA was caught spying on plainly financial targets such as the Brazilian oil giant Petrobras; economic summits; international credit card and banking systems; the EU antitrust commissioner investigating Google, Microsoft, and Intel; and the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. In response, the U.S. modified its denial to acknowledge that it does engage in economic spying, but unlike China, the spying is never done to benefit American corporations.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for instance, responded to the Petrobras revelations by claiming: âoeIt is not a secret that the Intelligence Community collects information about economic and financial mattersâ¦. What we do not do, as we have said many times, is use our foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf ofâ"or give intelligence we collect toâ"U.S. companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line.â

But a secret 2009 report issued by Clapperâ(TM)s own office explicitly contemplates doing exactly that. The document, the 2009 Quadrennial Intelligence Community Reviewâ"provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowdenâ"is a fascinating window into the mindset of Americaâ(TM)s spies as they identify future threats to the U.S. and lay out the actions the U.S. intelligence community should take in response. It anticipates a series of potential scenarios the U.S. may face in 2025, from a âoeChina/Russia/India/Iran centered bloc [that] challenges U.S. supremacyâ to a world in which âoeidentity-based groups supplant nation-states,â and games out how the U.S. intelligence community should operate in those alternative futuresâ"the idea being to assess âoethe most challenging issues [the U.S.] could face beyond the standard planning cycle.â

According to a 2002 "Information Need" spying order [PDF], the NSA was tasked with collecting economic data from the French government, including details of business contracts, information on the state's macroeconomic policy, it's relationships with international lenders, and any dirt on "questionable trade activities."

A 2012 memo [PDF] is more explicit. It specifies that all economic deals or financing rounds worth more than $200m are to be investigated, with particular emphasis on activity relating to the IT and telecommunications industries, oil and gas production, environmental technologies, healthcare developments, and biotechnology.

This information was not just for the use of the US, the documents note, but would be shared with the other four of the "Five Eyes" nations: the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.

The new release will be a massive embarrassment to the US government, since it has long maintained that the only reason the NSA exists is to spy on evildoers online â" terrorists, organized crime, drug dealers, and the like. That the agency was specifically tasked to go after the economic interests of an ally will cause red faces all round.

Fascist BS...? Not sure how to take that comment, nonetheless, the big picture of justification for actions has to be addressed whether it's spying on foreign gov'ts or domestic spying regarding one's own citizenry. Do you not agree? If there is past unjustified intrusions from specific gov'ts, that discussion of "intelligence collection" is legitimate for debate. This should be on everyone's mind since we live in a Constitutionally protected/governed country. Just to head off any confusion, I am not s

Your expectation is that if you discover wrongdoing, you should be the one to do prison time rather than those responsible?

There is clear evidence (both claimed by Snowden and confirmed by the NSA) that he did report his concerns to management only to be shot down, unfortunately that was the only path available to him at the time and so the inevitable happened. I for one am grateful that this information was leaked.

For the record, Snowden has said he would be willing to go to court and face jail time for this IF he could get a fair hearing. It's obvious he would never get this in the US.

There is clear evidence (both claimed by Snowden and confirmed by the NSA) that he did report his concerns to management only to be shot down, unfortunately that was the only path available to him at the time and so the inevitable happened. I for one am grateful that this information was leaked.

The government published all the emails they could find and only one of them was a question, and it was about procedural questions having to do with a training class about the authorities the NSA works under.

This just in, nothing will make Shadow of Eternity happy until everything burns.

They released every piece of correspondence they could find from Snowden, they would love to point to an instance where he tried to report it and the system failed, however, he never did. But of course, you are so anti government, that they could release every email he ever sent and it wouldn't make you happy.

Which I SHUT DOWN due to your lies about me on AD + DNS (GPO too from my security guides I see you've read, that are geared to single stand alone machines NOT networked ones but I advise vs. using external DNS with AD there too, here) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

hey released every piece of correspondence they could find from Snowden, they would love to point to an instance where he tried to report it and the system failed, however, he never did. But of course, you are so anti government, that they could release every email he ever sent and it wouldn't make you happy.

There's no evidence the NSA did any such thing. After all, it's a natural claim to make whether or not Snowden did report the host of problems he discovered. And we have Snowden's statement to the contrary that he did try to go through proper channels, and then decided on the current, successful approach after seeing what happened to past whistleblowers.

The obvious problem with unprovable claims from the NSA is that they have already lied about this subject in their favor. Thus, there is no reason to exp

Department A: We haven't broken any laws. No illegal spying.Whistleblower B: Department A spied on the American public. I reported this to Department A, but nothing changed.Department A: Ok, that spying stuff is true, but Whistleblower B didn't report it to us. Here are the records that we control that show no reports from Whistleblower B.

Proper protection would be oversight from a non-military agency with suitable experience in handling secret and top-secret issues. The problem is how do you setup something where a civilian has full access when necessary to classified information of this level.

The problem is how do you setup something where a civilian has full access when necessary to classified information of this level.

You don't. The issue isn't civilian vs. military or government. The issue is that regardless of an individual's security clearance level, access is based on being "read in" to the program in question AND upon having an established need-to-know. I have personally worked on a number of classified programs, but I only had access to information that was pertinent to doing my job.

There was a lack of protection. If it was important enough he should have been willing to do the time. You can't have individuals deciding what is and what is not a national security secret with no consequence. A legitimate whistleblower protection for reporting to someone in the chain of command (e.g. someone working for Congress on that specific issue) would have been appropriate.

Except the chain command has no interest in trouble-making whistle blowers. What is needed is a change in culture and attitude on the part of intelligence agencies, so that they are concerned with legality and civil rights and not just the shortest path to the most information. The boosting of the IG's power in this case better include subpoena and arrest power (or however these things work in New Zealand) or I don't see how it will help.

As to your first point, fuck that. Someone should be willing to have their life ruined in order to expose wrongdoing? That's exactly why more people don't come forward to begin with. I'll agree that is would be chaotic to have everyone deciding whether something should be secret or not. But "national security" and classification have been so abused and used to hide criminality, those who cite it have lost credibility. The speed and altitude capabilities of our newest spy plane? Sure, national security secret. The positions of our troops and battle plans? Absolutely, national security. The fact that the NSA is illegally spying on everyone in contravention of the Constitution? Nope, not national security.

What is needed is a change in culture and attitude on the part of intelligence agencies, so that they are concerned with legality and civil rights and not just the shortest path to the most information.

Anyone who has ever worked in national security can tell you every military and civilian intel agency is extremely careful about the legality of their actions and protecting the civil rights of Americans.

If you only read Glenn Greenwald-esque editorials and opinion pieces, then it's no wonder you have an extremely skewed view of the issues.

I work in a classified environment. You are right that people are concerned with what is legal. But people like Thomas Drake and William Binney might take issue with the idea they are concerned about civil rights. Oh sure, the rank and file are. But we are talking about the top brass here. You know, the guys who lie to Congress.

What is needed is a change in culture and attitude on the part of intelligence agencies, so that they are concerned with legality and civil rights and not just the shortest path to the most information.

Anyone who has ever worked in national security can tell you every military and civilian intel agency is extremely careful about the legality of their actions and protecting the civil rights of Americans.

If you only read Glenn Greenwald-esque editorials and opinion pieces, then it's no wonder you have an extremely skewed view of the issues.

Bullshit, I have personally experienced the willingness to twist/interpret something to make it appear legal, not something I was involved with but think about Abu Ghraib Prison and the US Army classifying the events. The laws regarding classification specifically state that classification cannot be used to hide embarrassing information so the classification authority used the tortured logic that if this EMBARRASSING information became public it would endanger US troops (absolutely true) but the real reas

You can't have individuals deciding what is and what is not a national security secret with no consequence.

That includes NSA. Just because you are working for a government agency you can't just say that anything is a national security secret and decide to not make it public.

The good thing is that you don't need to.All that is needed is that government agencies stops doing anything illegal and/or unethical. Then it won't be necessary employees to make the public aware of said events and a simple NDA would be sufficient to keep secrets.

TL;DR; If you have legitimate secrets, make sure that you don't commit crimes,

But individuals DO decide. The director of the NSA is an individual. He makes decisions about what things are secrets, and what things aren't. Sometimes he consults with the President on it. He decides what, if anything, to tell Congress. The NSA isn't a democratic institution, it's military, and it doesn't make decisions based on consensus. We shouldn't want it to. However, Congress abandoned oversight of intelligence a long time ago. In that vacuum, we have whistleblowers.

Except even if he was fully protected, guaranteed his job if he only went through 'proper channels', the other side is that EXACTLY NOTHING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED with what he reported. Everyone above him was fine with what they were doing.

The only way anything would have changed is by going public, and they will NEVER offer any kind of protection for doing that.

What about Aaron Swartz? Should he have been "willing to do the time"?

What about Michael Brown? Should he have been "willing to do the time"?

It's easy for you to say that these remarkable men should just "do the time", but the reality is a very different matter.

OK, that's the first time I've seen anyone group Michael Brown with people like Aaron Schwartz or Edward Snowden. What was it, again, that you consider "remarkable" about him?. Anyway, according to Baretta, willingness to do the time expresses willingness to do the time.

These organizations are staffed and run by thousands of average Americans who like freedom and our way of life... every person and boss at every level is doing his best to follow all applicable laws, the constitution, and the bill of rights.

So, don't take this the wrong way, but: Do you actually know any people? Have you ever had a job?

Because none of that is how being an employee works. If there's no accountability, people just surf the internet all day. If there is some kind of accountability, people do their best to keep their immediate supervisor happy, so that they don't get fired. If the accountability system is measurement-based, and most are, that means maximizing your "performance", which means maximizing some statistic about how you do your job. If any part of your job can't be measured, you can't be held accountable for it.

In most fields, the employee is under no pressure to break laws, because the laws are irrelevant. If you're writing software, for instance, it's pretty hard to accidentally break a law by typing a semicolon in the wrong place. So the laws don't interfere with you maximizing your measured performance.

But when you work for law enforcement? There are hundreds of laws designed specifically to get in your way. You have to work around them constantly. Law officers resent these laws, much as a computer programmer might resent bugs in the underlying operating system. So the natural inclination is to work around them. And they do, because there's often no reason not to.

Because how do you measure the statistic "laws adhered to, in spirit and in letter"? It's hard. Usually you can't. So nobody measures it. So people aren't held accountable for it. But the employee is still under pressure to maximize some other stats, and these laws prevent them from doing that. That is, following the laws lowers their measured performance, which has a negative effect on their employment. Breaking the laws, on the other hand, has no effect on their employment.

In actuality, these organizations are staffed and run by thousands of average Americans who like freedom and our way of life, and aren't going to violate these principles.

Sorry, we aren't dupes. If these organizations want to be treated with respect, then they should stop violating laws and subverting the constitution, stop with the secret courts, the universal spying, the undermining of the US high tech industry, and the harsh punishment of whistleblowers.

It has not been ruled that they did. The justification that was published had to do with pen registers. Also, getting a warrant satisfies the constitution, it doesn't matter which court is used for that warrant.

stop with the secret courts

Who else would you use that can see the secret information to determine if the warrant should be given?

the universal spying

the undermining of the US high tech industry

So, stop doing the job that they are asked to do by the government? The NSA is a spying agency, sorry to burst your bubble.

and the harsh punishment of whistleblowers.

No whistleblower has ever been harmed by the NSA. Disclosing secret and

Who else would you use that can see the secret information to determine if the warrant should be given?

Myself, for starters. If it can't be revealed to the public at all, it's not a legal warrant in my view.

So, stop doing the job that they are asked to do by the government? The NSA is a spying agency, sorry to burst your bubble.

Of course. Stop the job and maybe put a few people in prison after a public trial, of course.

No whistleblower has ever been harmed by the NSA. Disclosing secret and top secret information to foreign governments is not whistleblowing, it is treason. Snowden chose not to blow the whistle and instead commit treason, he is being charged with the crimes he committed.

Fuck you. This lie [reason.com] keeps going. You don't like how Snowden treated the NSA, then don't let the NSA treat whistleblowers like traitors.

If Snowden wanted to be a whistleblower, he should have taken his concerns to congress, not foreign governments.

Edward Snowden specifically did not blow the whistle. He was trained on the proper method to blow the whistle, and Eric Holder details that method in the article I linked. Whistleblowers don't run to foreign governments that are just as bad or worse at freedom, and in the intelligence industry, people know you take it to congress who has oversight of the intelligence agencies. He chose to run to China, who would disappear someone who did what he did, then to Russia that has killed people for speaking out

Edward Snowden specifically did not blow the whistle. He was trained on the proper method to blow the whistle, and Eric Holder details that method in the article I linked. Whistleblowers don't run to foreign governments that are just as bad or worse at freedom, and in the intelligence industry, people know you take it to congress who has oversight of the intelligence agencies. He chose to run to China, who would disappear someone who did what he did, then to Russia that has killed people for speaking out against the government. Yeah, he is real heroic, running to the people who are so much worse than what he is running from.

Well, as I noted earlier, Snowden's method worked, your "proper method" would have just hid the crimes. And let's face, with the brutal treatment of NSA whistleblowers, we have established, officially, running to a foreign power as a legitimate form of whistleblowing.

Why would ANYONE go to jail for spying? What do you think spy agencies are for? This is literally what we formed the NSA and CIA to do. The NSA also is tasked with securing the US Governments communications, but they are primarily a foreign intelligence agency. Their entire job is to spy on other governments to prevent them doing harm to the US.

I was thinking more prison for violating the US Constitution and treason.

So, according to you, we should compromise Top Secret information in order to get permission to stop a plot to hurt people/destroy shit in the US? I am so glad that you have no power, because you have no idea how this works or how it should work. Sources and methods are not meant to be revealed to the general public, as once they are revealed, they are useless in the future. You would have the predicessor of the NSA telling the world that the Enigma was broken in order to get permission to use the information, what kind of freaking moron makes that argument? If Germany found out that the Allies broke Enigma, World War 2 likely would have gone their way.

Well, as I noted earlier, Snowden's method worked, your "proper method" would have just hid the crimes. And let's face, with the brutal treatment of NSA whistleblowers, we have established, officially, running to a foreign power as a legitimate form of whistleblowing.

How would we know? Snowden chose not to use the proper procedures, and all the people who were prosecuted did as well. Leaking classified information to those without a need to know and the proper clearances is a federal crime. Choosing to do that on the hope that you will be seen as a whistleblower is absurd, there are proper procedures for the intelligence community, and they protect sources and methods properly. Leaking to a journalist protects nothing and leads to deaths.

I was thinking more prison for violating the US Constitution and treason.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How would we know? Snowden chose not to use the proper procedures, and all the people who were prosecuted did as well. Leaking classified information to those without a need to know and the proper clearances is a federal crime. Choosing to do that on the hope that you will be seen as a whistleblower is absurd, there are proper procedures for the intelligence community, and they protect sources and methods properly. Leaking to a journalist protects nothing and leads to deaths.

Government doesn't get innocent until proven guilty.

I assume that is the constitution you claim they violated. Considering that they had authorization from a federal court (FISA), that could count as a warrant, it was after all a judge ruling that the collection was reasonable, which also satisfies the constitution. Since it has been authorized numerous times since, and has been ruled both constitutional and unconstitutional, how can you say they have done anything against the constitution? The ruling that ruled it unconstitutional has even been overturned.

FISA is not constitutional due to its secrecy (it does more than merely issue questionable warrants which never see the light of day). That violates the 5th and 6th amendments as well.

How did anyone commit treason other than Snowden?

First, you haven't shown that Snowden committed treason. The worst I've read here is the usual accusation that he had the potential to help China or Russia, but no actual evidence of credible harm to the US or benefit to these countries has been shown as a result of his actio

It's a lie to say he ran to China and Russia. Rather he fled the US and accidentally found himself in China and Russia. Neither of which particularly wanted him, and neither of which he particularly wanted to be in.

You flew off the handle when I hinted you might have schizophrenia, that I was no doctor and had absolutely no right to do such a thing, and yet here you are doing the exact same thing to someone else. I just thought I'd remind you, so you don't make the same mistake in the future.

He is actually quoting me from the article yesterday about Autism Spectrum Disorders in STEM, I admitted to being diagnosed as Asperger's Syndrome when I was in Middle/High school. He seems to think calling it brain damage will reduce me in everyone's eyes, but the funny thing is that probably around 50% of the people on Slashdot are also Autism Spectrum, so he is really alienating many of the people here, and likely insulting himself too.

Ok, lets go through this thread so I can show you where you lost your argument.

Up here, I link the exact method that is legally allowed for Whistleblowers in the intelligence community.http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org] You then reply with a bunch of people, ONE of which actually used that procedure (then went on to leak to a journalist), many of which BROKE THE LAW. You then wonder why they are being persecuted. Maybe because they didn't follow the procedures that are allowed to them, and instead went to j

Then, when the procedure didn't proceed exactly like he wanted, he committed a crime and revealed the information to a journalist. When you choose to ignore proper procedures and break the law, do you often get surprised when you get arrested?

APK, as others have said, no one thinks this isn't you, we all know it is you posting supporting yourself. Stop deluding yourself that you are winning some kind of argument here, you have failed to make a point, and keep harping on it somehow missing the response. N

You don't dare respond to apk's other posts which show you're nothing but a weak trolling jerk

No, I don't respond to your other posts because I already have addressed every one of them, you just don't care and will continue to post the same crap over and over to try and prove yourself right rather than actually responding to the points I made.

Plus, if you actually wanted a response to any of them, you would stop the needless ad hominem, the trollish repetition and lack of actual points. When you want to discuss these things without all the attacks and bullshit, I will be here waiting.

Drake was prosecuted when he decided to stop following procedure, not for following procedure. When you follow the procedures, you won't get prosecuted, when you throw a temper tantrum and report everything to journalists, you get prosecuted for breaking the law.

Quit shilling for your bosses in government that you've admitted you do work for which I read in your posting history here on slashdot.

Got any idea how many cops have been decertified and/or imprisoned in the US lately? Police work, like the intel services, ATTRACT PEOPLE WHO ARE UTTER DOUCHEBAGS. Maybe MOST people are just average Americans, with a tendency to defend freedom - but you've also got a bunch of douchebags.

I'll bite - I AM a former employee of the NSA, and I can tell you this:

During our training there was an awful lot of winking taking place. Like, "It is against the law for us to copy American targets, so if we end up accidentally copying something from an American it is our responsibility to stop immediately and move on. "

Of course, this was back in the pre-internet days, so surely they've gotten MORE (and not less) responsible, right?

Not only that but a quick google search will show you that you are defi

The sheer volume of what Snowden leaked is proof that you are a naive fool.

Revealing details of the metadata program that collected phone numbers from domestic carriers? You can make a whistleblowing claim here. I supported Snowden during the first 1-2 weeks after he revealed himself, because I want to protect the constitution and values we live by here in the U.S.

But what else has Snowden revealed as time went on? The whistleblowing material dried up very quickly... Snowden revealed detailed information beyond just generalities on the following topics:

Snowden's revelations caused a huge shakeup in the intelligence community. Such as a federal judge ruling that the NSAs blanket collection was unconstitutional. If things were right beforehand, none of this would have happenedhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]